Curiously can anyone give references to these sort of things working in the past?  I understand BitShares is a new product in many many ways so it is hard to find an example that fits very well, but I would think there should be something out there.

I wonder if the better solution could be more within education. I don't think education is a great idea, but I question whether paying liquidity providers will be enough to jumpstart the system ... and if it isn't (which seems likely) you have now spent your war chest.

I feel I could delve into a dozen issues as to why all these random coins have passed up BitShares on this weird Chinese based pump, but I will go into one.

All newly introduced gambling systems have a  period of time where the square money is bled dry.  Smartcoins are no different. You bet on one side or the other. It is a gambling system and a newly introduced one at that. This is one problem I always had with my limited understanding of the mechanics behind the Smartcoins. It seemed like at some point it would be lopsided. Eventually the suckers are bled dry and there is simply a lack of participants.  This happens in all gambling games for the most part.  Yes, you can put in pricing mechanisms  to even out the wager, but at some point they become too complicated and there are many other alternatives for people to get their gambling fix without having the equivalent of a grad degree in math. So once BitShares got past the point where the square money was bled dry, the losing participants gave up and moved on to something else. Unfortunately this is a very very hard problem to fix. You need a mixture of new money, education, and reintroduction of faith in the product.

The best bet at this point would be for bytemaster to spend time trying to get any Chinese developer up to task. I'm afraid though that once the blind transfer stuff is implement, longterm motivations will somehow be lost in the mishmash of exchanges. If you could get a Chinese team taking over BTS, things might possibly be turned around.  Otherwise you end up with MAS, and other things that fail just like the affiliate marketing.

This is no slight to the guys who released 2.0, but they obviously need to make money somewhere and people seem hesitant to pay CNX going forward.

Also - the wagering involved in Bitshares isn't exactly fair.  Sharp participants with capital seem to be able to effect the outcome to a significant degree.  This makes the sharp vs square money even more lopsided, leading to the loss of interest by the squares.

edit - Someone asked why a Chinese developer would be a good thing.  #1 They are relatively cheap.  #2 This is what BitShares has been setup to do supposedly.  Something that can fund the development of itself. #3 A lot of crypto capital comes from the Chinese side which I suspect has a larger nationalism aspect. Chinese developers would breath new life into the project and the blockchain has a decent chance of being able to pay them.

Quote from: Akado on January 16, 2016, 11:49:40 pm

Not Found

The requested URL / was not found on this server.

Where are you located?
Is it redirecting to btswolf.com?

It does this for me too when I go to the longer url.  Nice site, good job though.  Just need the redirect fixed ?  I'm US based btw.

Committee should not be paid IMO.  It should be generally a very undesirable position. 

Committee is already, like congress, an attractive seat for power hungry sociopaths. (I'm not saying this about any current members)  We don't need to sweeten the pot for *greedy power hungry sociopaths.  (again, not referring to any current committee)

It would be better to have an empty committee doing nothing than a full committee making poor decisions, or doing nothing but collecting a pay check .   Paying the committee incentivizes people with the wrong motives and qualifications to run for committee seats.

Ideally there would be very little for the committee to do.  If everything is set "correctly".

I think you're getting way ahead of yourself. The power over something like BitShares isn't exactly the same power a 'power hungry sociopath' is looking for.

As far as Akado saying the incentives are there.  Yes, they are for those with a significant amount of their own capital at stake.  Lots of reasons those people might not be committee material where as a young guy who doesn't have much might very well be what BitShares needs.

Xeroc - I wouldn't worry about conflict of interest at this point.  BitShares needs passionate honest motivated people. It might look bad to someone peaking in from the outside who is looking for something to complain about but overall it would be positive.

So.  They kept their bitcoin and litecoin wallets on the same server that they kept their lucky7coin?

Lol yes!  and presumably didn't chroot the coinds etc. I mean getting competent admins isn't cheap, but christ all mighty.

The fact that the wallets were on the same server is sketchy at best.  I mean..  it must have been the cold wallet too ?  BigVern is one sketchy mofo. 

They were removed off of coinmarketcap too? 

What did anyone expect?

In this world of hyper competitive businesses, some guy is going to start a business that does everything?  It was nonsense from the start and you had to have blinders on to buy into that one.

I am still not sure this idea addresses the problem it attempts to overcome.  I think it is just a matter of moving around numbers, but I am too lazy to try to prove it to myself. I was hoping someone could explain it to me a bit better...

I will say that restricting voting is better in human ability terms. By this I mean that by not being able to vote on multiple committee members, you are reducing the time burden required to vote.  One only has to research one committee member versus creating a list. Maybe this factor is more important than the objective outlined in the original post?

Perhaps reduce voting to one member, then let the member distribute their excess votes?

Quote from: Samupaha on January 03, 2016, 11:15:48 am

The rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.

If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.

I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.

ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.

but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster.

can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.

DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.

it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.

So what am I missing?  What would prevent someone from just splitting their stake across multiple accounts to get around this?  It seems like a soft rule that is only meaningful to those who choose to stay within the parameters.